Bidisha, of The Guardian's Comment is Free, is angry: she feels that the critical press has slighted female authors of speculative fiction, and that the comfort with which critics have torn down J.K. Rowling is part of the problem:

"[B]ut the issue doesn't stop with her. It extends to all female fantasy writers, world-creators and myth-makers. According to the backlash, Rowling is swell for dim kiddies, along with Susan Cooper and Diana Wynne Jones (but none are as good as CS Lewis or Roald Dahl, of course), while Philip Pullman and Philip Reeve are worthy of adult analysis. Critics ignore the tough heroines created by Tamora Pierce and Trudi Canavan, but acclaim Lewis Carroll's creepily pliable Alice, who obediently consumes whatever cupcakes and potions she finds in Wonderland. Darren Shan and Garth Nix are rising stars thanks to the Potter-fuelled fantasy bandwagon, but there's no casual namedropping of female speculative authors Robin Hobb, Mary Gentle or Malorie Blackman, whose Noughts and Crosses is a modern classic."

If Bidisha is referring to the mainstream literary press, then the fact that female writers have been sidelined probably has more to do with the fact that only the most commercially successful, accessible genre fiction even makes it to the review section of your favorite newspaper.  The names "Robin Hobb" and "Joe Abercrombie" produce no results in a search of the New York Times Books section, for instance. 

Mainstream reviews of fantasy fiction in particular are almost always dull to read and filled with the same dull comparisons: Tolkien, Lewis, Carroll, etc.  This is almost certainly due either to a dearth of serious readers of the genre in the ranks of the literary press or to an inexplicable need to dumb down reviews of genre fiction by going light on comparative analysis.  Either way, all the more reason for the amateur genre critics (the Bard included) to start correcting these problems.